“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” Brigham Young, in between saying plenty of pretty offensive things.
I’m in an online group for women who share my calling in the church, and at various times, individuals pose dilemmas they are facing in their ward, and ask one another for advice in how to handle tricky problems. One that came up recently was a story about someone who had accidentally offended a sister in the ward and then apologized, but the sister was still upset, maybe with her, but also with some others in the ward who had been more thoughtless and had not apologized.
I was shocked, but probably shouldn’t have been, by the responses of the majority of these church-active sisters. Most of them were inclined to blame the sister who was offended and completely exonerate the sister who apologized. They said that clearly this offended sister was sinful, weak, on her way out of the church, in the clutches of Satan, and that too many people are too thin-skinned in the church and in society now, that they just need to get over it, and if they don’t, they are apostate and bad. They are cutting themselves off from blessings by choosing to feel offended, and it was best to just move on and forget them. They felt that the offending sister had gone above and beyond by apologizing (although making it clear why she was really in the right in her mind), and that should be enough.
When I protested that we needed to remember we know nothing of this absent “offended” sister, and that we should try to understand her situation to know why she felt as she did, I was immediately accused of being offended myself! It was mind-blowing! I was just calling for some empathy and reflection.
“Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” Luke 17:1
Yes, we should forgive. We should not be easily offended. But much more importantly in this church–we should quit rationalizing our own offensive behavior and lack of empathy. These are the cultural tics we have developed, a knee-jerk defensive reaction against taking any responsibility for the way the things we say and do affect other people. It’s a problem at the institutional level, and it’s at least as prevalent among the membership.
In Jim Collins’ landmark leadership book Good to Great, he talks about the mirror and the window, stating that great leaders look in the mirror when things go wrong and through the window when things go well. They take blame for mistakes and downturns, but they are generous and humble, recognizing their luck and the contributions of others, with successes and windfalls. When it comes to people being offended, a thing that goes wrong in relationships, church members are much more prone to blame the offended person and much less likely to look in the mirror to reflect on their own actions. We talk about being offended like it’s a temptation, a choice, a character flaw. We call things “being offended” just so we don’t have to acknowledge our mistakes. We use it to avoid the heavy lifting of empathy and admitting we might be wrong. We use it to dismiss people who threaten our sense of justification.
We should instead start from the assumption that a person who is offended is acting in good faith and has a rational reason for being upset, hurt or offended. Someone being offended isn’t a threat. It’s an invitation to listen and understand. It’s an opportunity to show that we care more about others than we do about our own fragile ego.
What more is going on with that person? Why are they upset? What do they know that I don’t know? How is their experience different than mine? What is the rest of the context of their feelings? How are people they care about affected? Is this the straw that broke the camel’s back? Once we stop taking it personally (because we fear being seen as a bad person), once we quit making it about ourselves and care about them as a person, we can actually heal the breach and deserve the forgiveness of the one we’ve wronged.
The process that usually happens goes like this: 1) I’m afraid someone doesn’t like me, 2) I seek like-minded supporters who will tell me why I’m right and good and the person who doesn’t like me is bad or “easily offended,” 3) lather, rinse, repeat. Thus I don’t change my behavior, and my negative view of that person is confirmed when they avoid me (or leave the church). I can cluck my tongue about how easily offended other people are and assure myself that if it hadn’t been me, it would have been someone else. You’re welcome.
A slightly better, but still not great approach is to apologize while excusing our own behavior to try to show that person why you were right to do what you did, and to get them to see why they are being so unreasonable to be upset with you. As one of my bosses wisely observed, “When you’re explaining, you’re losing.” I say it’s still better because while it’s defensive, at least there’s a conversation with the person, not just about the person. But it’s still a very “me” centered approach. Rather than talk about your hurt, let me convince myself why I’m an OK person.
A healthier, more Christ-like approach would be: 1) feel concern for the other person who is upset or hurting, 2) imagine why they might feel that way, 3) listen to them to understand their situation and see if there is anything you can do to help, 4) be their champion in any way you can in future–become their supporter, their friend, while keeping confidences, 5) don’t require them to make you feel better or to forgive you. Apologize freely without conditions.
Is this the same across all denominations?
- Do you agree this is a blind spot for church members? If so, why? If not, why not?
- How can the church do a better job of modeling empathy?
- Are other church-going people like this to this degree?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Elder Bednar is (in)famously quoted saying “To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.” Because of his current role and visibility (I think) the line is becoming part of our culture.
I’ve always wondered whether the rationalization is simply a play on the word “offended” and what he would say if we replaced “offended” with “hurt”? Would anyone really say “To be hurt is a choice we make; not a condition inflicted by someone or something else”?
It is in part a human nature problem, but the way we treat offense like you have described seems to be a big part of LDS culture. I do remember talks like the commenter above has mentioned, which seems to be where the mindset comes from.
I think there are a few reasons for this attitude. Many of them have institutional advantages.
1. As certain church doctrines become more unpopular, it is easier to blame people who take offense to the doctrines rather than examine their content or how they are taught. People can certainly disagree about beliefs, but beliefs can be taught with respect and consideration. And we can respect that others have a right to their own views.
2. It’s a good cover for leaders who are inept or not considerate. No leader will be perfect, and we need to have compassion, but it’s a way for wards to sort of deal with more egregious offenses without having to involve the hierarchy. If you have a bishop, for example, who says derogatory things about certain groups and ward members are offended, then the ward members can self-reflect, repent, and continue to sustain their leader. No action needs to be taken against the bishop because people chose to be offended.
3. I think it can go hand in hand with the mentality that the wicked take the truth to be hard. I guess this kind of goes with number 2, but if you are offended with something a leader has said, you likely disagree. But when these feelings arise, our culture wants us to look inward and see how we are wrong and chose to feel the way we reacted and chose to disagree. If members do this consistently, there will be less doubting and questioning.
This all sounds cynical. I do think there are merits to looking inward in situations of conflict. There are definitely times when someone did or said something with the best of intentions that didn’t come across well. It is important to recognize people’s intentions and their actions to have productive relationships. I just think both sides of the equation should be emphasized in our culture. When two people disagree, they can both ask Lord is it I.
Church members certainly use the one-sided emphasis to immediately cast blame away from themselves. It is more bearable to think people leave the church strictly because of their own flaws than to think some leave because of the church’s flaws. Fostering more charity seems to be the more Christ-like response. Why do we bother trying to reactivate people if we truly think all less active members are just thin-skinned sinners? Say that three times fast Haha. It is contradictory that we present this narrative of inactive people to congratulate ourselves on our own faithfulness and then turn around and say we love these people and want them back.
The top LDS leadership seems to have taken to heart the John Wayne line “never apologize; it’s a sign of weakness.” (e.g. Elder Oaks “The Church doesn’t seek apologies, and we don’t give them.” Also Elder Cook’s response to the widespread faith crisis: “We’ve never been stronger.”)
And yet, I think that if leaders would be more empathetic, and tried to understand why people felt offended, or were stepping away from full activity, the Church would certainly be better for it.
Ignoring hurts that are inflicted, whether we are the offended or the perp, is a widespread problem among people in general, not just religious groups. Further exacerbating the damage is gaslighting the offended person about “schooling their feelings” and praising the ones who are able to ignore their own pain. It’s terrible for one’s mental health, which carries over into physical health.
Modeling empathy is sometimes different from having empathy. Some are gifted at empathy and others struggle with it, but it can be learned and fostered among those less gifted, and cultivated and refined among the more gifted. I think one piece that’s missing is a commitment to finding out the truth (or a small part of it) as closely as possible, no matter what the truth reveals. As opposed to operating on unexamined assumptions. This means a few more messy and awkward conversations than we’re used to. The learning curve is not a comfort zone.
In my personal experience with scaling down my previous level of participation at church , not one person in my family or ward friends has ever asked me what my thoughts and reasons are. That reveals something to me about the depth of care that exists in actual reality. Sometimes people just don’t want too much information about your messy life, I suspect because they are maxed out managing their own.
At least, that’s my most empathetic view. The sad part is that this makes our connections to each other weak and false, and our survival and salvation exists through those connections.
Like most things in life, there is a balance. There are many actions we should take overt offense to and express outrage over. But let’s not go overboard.
Every culture conditions its members to feel offense over something. For many Mormons, casual swearing is known to trigger deep outrage. Many Mormons have a persecution complex and are easily offended when they hear someone say something that think isn’t correct about the church. I remember when President Monson died and the New York Times wrote an obituary that many Mormons took deep offense over. The obituary didn’t even mention anything that was incorrect, but didn’t really go out of its way to praise Monson. It is just that many Mormons have very high expectations of how their leaders and their religion is portrayed.
Furthermore, I find it ironic that many Mormons love to laugh at those who leave the church because of this idea, somewhat unfounded but widespread, that those who leave the church are easily offended, all the while failing to note common expressions of offendedness among their own.
It seems like “they were offended” is a one-size-fits-all explanation for when any person or family leaves the Church, whatever the facts. That’s sort of shorthand for “they were offended, they chose to be offended, not my fault, sin and Satan probably in the mix as well,” just to hit the other bases. Of course, if an LDS takes offense at something someone says about the Church, accurate or not, then it is invariably righteous anger. All the “don’t get offended” stuff is ignored.
You would think a missionary-minded church that can’t stop talking about missionary work and sends out tens of thousands of missionaries every year (whether or not they have anything worthwhile to do) would be *very* concerned about people who leave. No use pouring water in a leaky bucket. But people at the local level are remarkably unconcerned about those who exit. Sure, they’ll send a plate of cookies or invite them to the Christmas Party. But, honestly, I have never sat in a morning meeting where the item on the agenda was, “What did we do wrong? What can we change to stop losing people? What is our problem?” It’s never *our* problem in these meetings, it’s always *their* problem (see first paragraph).
The LDS church teaches members to search, ponder and pray about decisions. They are told to ask God for inspiration. They are told that their thoughts, actions and decisions will be inspired. Many members take those teachings and then make the assumption that every thought and decision in their life is “ordained by God.” There is a term for that. It is Self-Righteousness.
How do we get past the culture of self-righteousness? No sincere apologies are going to happen until the church and culture can learn humility and introspection.
I’ve tried to always remember that if I am attempting to communicate and I fail, I’ve failed.
So if I offended someone I didn’t mean to offend, then it is my fault.
I did better at that in my professional career than I have otherwise. Now that I’ve retired I’m trying to do better in my personal life —to apply the lesson I learned at work other places.
The idea that a person can choose not to be offended is wonderful, transformative advice when applied to oneself, but it is the worst possible way to respond to someone else’s pain. Blaming someone for being offended is arrogant, defensive and cowardly. It is a very fine example of King Benjamin’s natural man. It is the opposite of love. Nothing could be better calculated to alienate others and stymie the church. Yet somehow it has become a type of received wisdom among many Latter-day Saints.
Thanks, hawkgrrl. Your writing is brilliant.
“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”
This is often attributed to Brigham Young. It is also regularly attributed to Confucius — though it is hard to confuse the two.
Because I could find no one citing a source earlier than Marion D. Hanks’ unfootnoted January 1974 Ensign article [1], I asked a childhood acquaintance who is an expert on the shorthand reports of Young’s sermons (often different from the published “transcriptions”) what she could find. Searching her combined files of her transcriptions of Brigham Young sermons, she found he used “offense” very, very rarely, and then in relation to one’s conscience being void of offense. She also searched an electronic copy of a 5 volume collection of “everything” said by Young – Journal of Discourses, Deseret News, unpublished transcripts that the compiler could get his hands on. Again she found very, very few instances of the word “offense” and nothing even vaguely related to the attributed quote. It seems very likely, maybe even near certain, that Young did not say that – or any similar quote that used the word “offense.”
Maybe Hanks reported a pre-internet rumor he heard. Maybe someone else can find whatever “report” he referred to – accurate or not.
Unfortunately, in April conference 2003, Elder David Sorensen of the Presidency of the Seventy, took Hanks’ 1974 report that it had been “reported that President Brigham Young once said …” and, in his talk, changed its status from unsourced rumor to “President Brigham Young once compared being offended to a poisonous snakebite….” He footnoted only Hanks’ article. Others seem to have followed suit in attributing to Young what may have started as a mere rumor or off-hand, inaccurate attribution.[2]
It seems to me that the tendency to self-justification is natural to humans, religious or not, but that Hawk got it right as to a very common LDS attitude. Perhaps the common (but not ubiquitous) LDS unthinking adulation of authority and the kind of reporting Hanks and Sorensen indulged (and the kind of rhetorical exaggeration or linguistic sleight-of-hand Elder Bednar indulged in) in may exacerbate that tendency among some.
Could it be that the GAs have attempted to address real issues of forgiveness or vengeance and used language that lent itself to distorted judgments that others, the offended, need to forgive and not the offenders who need to repent? If so, repeatedly attributing to a Church president something he likely did not say doesn’t help. There are serious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the reports in the Journal of Discourse (which doesn’t include the alleged quotation mentioned above), but that’s off-topic here.
[1] “It is reported that President Brigham Young once said that he who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool. It was then explained that there are two courses of action to follow when one is bitten by a rattlesnake. One may, in anger, fear, or vengefulness, pursue the creature and kill it. Or he may make full haste to get the venom out of his system. If we pursue the latter course we will likely survive, but if we attempt to follow the former, we may not be around long enough to finish it.” Hanks
[2]The “Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study,” on the other hand, attributes the rattlesnake bite analogy to Hanks and not to Young.
“But much more importantly in this church–we should quit rationalizing our own offensive behavior and lack of empathy. These are the cultural tics we have developed, a knee-jerk defensive reaction against taking any responsibility for the way the things we say and do affect other people. It’s a problem at the institutional level, and it’s at least as prevalent among the membership.”
Yes.
I’ve sat through many a Sacrament meeting, RS lessons, etc where, instead of discussing where/how we might improve and do better, we end up patting ourselves on the back about how great we are and what great things we do.
This topic hits home for me and some family members. I used to think too, it was a shame people let offenses separate them from the church, but now I understand why and how that happens.
Thank you!!! I’ve realized for years we often hear talks from the pulpit on how we should stop getting offended and how we should forgive those that have offended us, but have I ever heard a conference talk or a talk in church for that matter, on the need to go to those we have hurt and offended and apologize and make it right. Jesus even said, before you go to the alter with your sacrifice, if you know someone has aught against you, go to them and make it right. We don’t hear that one because it takes true genuine humility and a drastic lowering of our egos. But it’s truly necessary in many cases for healing to begin and relationships to be restored. I have a feeling if more apologizing was done by the leaders of this church it would go along way to stemming the tide of people leaving. I yearn for that type of leader!
One problem is that offense has been weaponized in the larger culture to silence differing opinions and attempt to bully individuals and institutions. I can think of a half-dozen incidents off the top of my head when people claimed offense at something because they disliked the content of the message — not the delivery. Not everyone who takes something to be hard is guilty, but it is nevertheless accurate that the guilty takes the truth to be hard. So at least a portion of the total subset of those offended are, in fact, offended by their own conscience.
Yes, we should always strive to be empathetic. And yes, Christ clearly says contention is of the Devil (not just contention when you happen to be wrong, but even contention when you are right). But as time goes on, I find a greater and greater personal inertia to those claiming offense. And, admittedly, this may be a moral failure in me. But the more often I encounter offense claimed cynically in the culture at large (and in the Church), the less likely I find myself to respond favorably to it even when it may be genuine (and potentially deserved).
There are those who claim offense when the doctrine on same-sex attraction is taught. There are those who claim offense when the doctrine on the priesthood is taught. There are those who claim offense when the doctrine on the family is taught. And, to show it is not only on one side, there are those who claim offense when the Church position on immigration is taught (as an example). There will be those who claim offense any time a doctrine or policy is taught that does not conform to their political, social, or cultural worldview — even when every attempt is made to present that doctrine in a loving and empathetic manner. I see it even in this article in the demand that an apology be given — there is the presumption that a person taking offense is universally owed an apology. They can therefore skip past the heavy lifting of demonstrating their position is correct by leaping to the position of being offended.
You say “[w]e should instead start from the assumption that a person who is offended is acting in good faith and has a rational reason for being upset, hurt or offended.” But in my experience, there are too many individuals who use their offense as a negotiating strategy or argumentative strategy (‘I must be right, because see how offended I am’) to agree with that position. But, as we rationally should be able to recognize, being right is often completely independent of being offended.
It is unfortunate but undeniable that the person you may see as lacking empathy has likely encountered one or more individuals using their ‘offense’ as a cynical manipulation tactic. We perhaps shouldn’t be jaded by those experiences…but we almost always are.
It strikes me that it is a combination of 1 and 2 that Mary cites above. The overall problem is that when too many claims of offense at 1 are heard, it drowns out the offenses from 2 that should be addressed. It is a situation unfair and unfortunate both towards those legitimately offended by callous and uncaring comments and those who honestly try to be empathetic. One negative consequence of so many taking offense at the doctrine is that legitimate cases of offense based upon carelessness or other reasons that truly demonstrate a lack of empathy melds into the background noise of the generalized clamor of offense.
This is I think a variation on a theme I often see, that I am the victim here. For example that christians are the most persecuted people on earth. Often because their views on gay marriage, or abortion are questioned.
When the change to endowment came out, I suggested to the ward newsletter writer, it could be good to publicize that the endowment was now less sexist, but to check with bishop first. Next sunday bishop called me into his office to tell me that I could not use derogatory terms like sexist about the church. He is a high school teacher but could not accept that the church was sexist. I will not be invited to give talks because I can’t be trusted not to use terms like that about the church. So the church doesn’t have sexism, I have the problem for using the term.
I’ve been watching Van Jones series called “Redemption” involving people or (their family members) who’ve been the victim of a horrible tragedy caused by someone else. For example, a cop who was shot (but survived) by a gang member, a young man killed by someone high on drugs etc. The victim (or family member of the deceased) and the perpetrator go through a process that ends up in a face-to-face meeting. It has been fascinating and surprising to watch the process of forgiveness that often occurs.
The one episode (so far)that didn’t result in a satisfying way involved a woman who was very active and involved religiously, meeting the man who hit her son. (the son was going home, riding a lawn tractor on the street. It was interesting..,
“When I protested that we needed to remember we know nothing of this absent “offended” sister…”
No doubt you have seen how rare it is to NOT make a snap judgment. I had a co-worker ask me for my opinion on a new employee. My answer was that I did not yet have an opinion on the new employee, ask me again in a few months. It seems most people can form an opinion about a total stranger in only ten seconds (or less).
“A healthier, more Christ-like approach would be…”
Something he didn’t exactly demonstrate with lawyers, Pharisees and money changers!
My own inadvertent offense giving
I have long ago abandoned trying to guess at what will offend someone especially if I do not know that someone.
I was put in charge of organizing an Elder’s Quorum dinner. I believed it would be a great opportunity for the men to do everything; cook and clean, entertain; the works. I also knew that in many cases wives would be secretly doing rather a lot of it and defeat the plan. So I pleaded with the men to cook, learn if necessary how to do it, make macaroni and cheese if that’s what it comes down to, but really try to make it a women’s day off.
After the dinner the wife of my home teacher was furious and never spoke to me again. To this day I do not know what exactly was the problem but I suppose she felt it was HER job to organize events and obtain whatever glory is obtained by working oneself to the bone and “bleeding so you can hear the splashes”. By denying her that opportunity she felt cheated; but also, some of the women went ahead and prepared dishes for the potluck anyway, and she apparently had not. So they got whatever glory comes from doing that, and she was denied that opportunity to have some glory.
I did not, and do not, feel like I did anything wrong. For what would I apologize?
I’ve been thinking of this post since yesterday, as I have actually been contemplating the theme myself over recent weeks. I think the unfortunate tendency to blame others for their decisions to step away from
church shares (at least) 2 components: [a] if I can say someone left the church because of their own offense, I needn’t examine my own potential culpability in the matter (because clearly, I have none, right!), and [b] it keeps me away from wondering if I have my own breaking point. If it turns out I do, what if it’s actually similar to something I’ve scoffed at in another person? Wait, faithful saints don’t even go there…….
GEOFF -AUS writes “the endowment was now less sexist”
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If my sense of what is good and bad differs significantly from voluntary organizations to which I belong I really ought to leave the organization rather than be the tail that wags the dog.
I believe each person is many kinds of ist: sexist, ageist, ableist, racist. There’s a list of some 280 kinds of “ist”. These preferences probably arose by (1) evolution or (2) God. Pick one, makes no practical difference. You choose your friends, enemies and mate based on more seemingly irrelevant factors than a PhD sociologist can name in one breath.
But are they irrelevant? No, that is impossible. The relevance may not be obvious but clan preference has definite advantages over clan dis-preference. Can you imagine a primitive African or Amazonian tribe practicing current “woke” social justice practices? It would be tragically comical for the one, maybe two generations that tribe would continue to exist.
Modern western civilization has enough material surplus to entertain deviations from evolutionary paths or God’s paths (doesn’t make a big difference who created the path). But that surplus is limited and evolution/God is going to intrude in a generation or two.
Jonathan C –
Your comment is interesting to me because the way that you use the term ‘offended’ in every other area of my life would be called ‘disagreement.’
I regularly disagree with friends/family/acquaintances on LGBTQ (or any other hot topic )teachings. Only in the church is this called being offended. I wonder why…? It feels like there is an emotional difference in disagreements within the church than without. Also, I wonder if the ‘offense’ is less about the teaching itself and more about the relationship (between who exactly gets a bit fuzzy).
Or if its a symptom of patriarchy where only the ‘authorized priesthood-holder’ or ‘approved doctrine’ can ever be correct and thus any disagreement must be a sin on the part of person in disagreement. There’s a huge, unequal power dynamic in that. By using ‘offended’ instead of ‘disagree’ are we display/reinforce that power-dynamic…?
I rely on Zootopia to advise me how to not offend others:
A bunny can call another bunny “cute” but a cat cannot call a bunny “cute”.
Just because foxes are predators does not mean that the next fox you meet is going to eat you. Odds are it will but you are not supposed to go through life playing the odds. Maybe you’ll get lucky!
Jonathan Cavender, you’re right that offense is often weaponized to silence discussion. But take a look at your own. By acting offended, the LDS leaders and members have shut down many a conversation on sexual orientation. In many ways, conservative LDS believers leverage offendedness more to their advantage than do their critics. Critics by and large seem to be more open to discussion than do your average believer.
It seems like nowadays, people are in competition about who can appear to be the greater victim. And there are real victims, and then there are fake victims. Much like the idea that white males are now collectively the victims of the so-called SJWs and a current of political correctness run amok is a fake victimhood, the idea that conservative religions are the collective victims of secular culture is similarly a fake victimhood. In the US today, the pressure for the LDS church to change its position on LGBTQ issues is coming from within far more than it is from the outside. By and large, pro-LGBTQ rights outsiders don’t care too much about what the LDS church’s positions are, because these don’t directly affect them, especially after the legalization of gay marriage. But ex-Mormons and liberal Mormons are a far greater force for change.
Michael 2, it is really tragic that those political correctness nutjobs have deprived us of our god-given rights to say the n-word about blacks and the f-word about gays. I wish times hadn’t changed and the only offendedness about language that there was was massive overreaction to someone saying “oh my God,” “damn,” and “hell.” I know for myself that I get so, so butthurt when someone calls me a racist or a homophobe. In fact, I think that it is more offensive to call someone a racist or a homophobe than actual instances of racist and homophobic language. The times we live in.
ReTx:
What I am talking about is a difference in kind between disagreement and offense. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me about just about anything. In fact, having conversations with people who (1) you know are moral; (2) you know are just as smart (or smarter) than you; and (3) disagrees with you is one of the most productive things you can do. You have to marshal your thoughts because you cannot hide (even internally) behind ad hominem. What I am referring to are those who express their disagreement by showing offense.
In fact, I haven’t once heard it call being offended to merely disagree (but your anecdotal evidence may vary from my anecdotal evidence). As for the power dynamic, I am afraid, that is a non-starter. None of us gets to throw our opinion (or, for that matter, our ‘lived experience’) against the doctrine as if it had equal weight. Believe what you want, and I will believe what I want, but when push comes to shove in a Church environment our opinions bend and the doctrine remains. Replace that and you don’t have the Kingdom of God on Earth (or even a Church), but rather a service-oriented community group with an online debating society attached.
And, again, that tries to steal a march in a similar way. Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean they are right (even if they are really, really offended). Just because there is an unequal power dynamic doesn’t mean the less powerful person is right (even if they are really, really less powerful). In the Old Testament, the Israelites are taught to neither “respect” the rich because of their money, nor “respect” the poor because of their poverty. Truth is truth, regardless of the relative power of the speaker or the offense taken by the listener. God is far more powerful than any one of us (talk about an unequal power dynamic) and His Word cuts quick to the dividing asunder of families (talk about offensive) and yet He is right and when we fight against Him we are not.
So if someone is right, make the case they are right. But talking about power dynamics and offense is far too often an attempt to avoid that discussion entirely.
John W:
If I, at all, came off as offended in my post there is a missing context. The truth is the truth — hopefully I am on the right side of it in my comments, but if not the truth holds and I have to bend. Again, I don’t know anyone attempting to preserve the doctrine who is claiming offense — the most I hear is that there is a feeling they need to walk on eggshells around those who disagree with the doctrine. But I lack the social skills to worry about walking around on eggshells, so I have that going for me…
Regarding your last paragraph we agree that there is a victim competition (which is destructive to the souls of all of those who play — regardless of who wins). Regarding the pressure to change, I think you are correct that it is coming from inside the Church. The concern that I have is not that the protests will motivate Church leaders to “cave” or anything similar — this Church is what it says it is, and God is at the helm. The worry is the Church will change based upon revelation in the same way the Law of Consecration was changed by God to accommodate those who couldn’t live the higher law. The purpose of the Church is to make saints of sinners, and if the sinners gather around and try to protect their sins sometimes they succeed. Israel got her king, and we see what that got them.
My opinion (for what little it is worth) is that if enough members got together and petitioned God to reveal changes to the way the Church handles some fundamental aspects of His Church those changes might actually come about — and though that might be the best available result that might not be a good result. But I have gone a bit afield of the topic in this response.
John W:
LOL, well written.
“the n-word about blacks and the f-word about gays.”
I’ve used “negro” in the distant past; its simply “black” in Spanish. I’ve never used the deprecating slang word but you are right that people ought to be free to be rude and then suffer the natural consequences of being rude (not “government” consequences; but natural consequences; a punch in the face sometimes).
Social controls are useful to prevent needless or inadvertent offense giving; such that when I am offended it is much more likely that you intended to offend me (or vice versa).
By elevating trivialities society has actually succeeded only in trivializing serious offenses as they can no longer be discerned which is which.
I think I should share that the story that prompted the post’s thoughts wasn’t an example of some politically charged offense. A woman was offended / hurt / upset that several ward members who were invited to her child’s birthday party did not attend. Now that’s a personal, everyday sort of thing that can cause someone to be upset. It doesn’t mean she’s wrong to be upset or she’s right either. That I don’t know. But as a parent, I know that her child’s feelings are probably part of the issue at play. That made it all the more shocking to see so many pile on and claim that this woman was jeopardizing her eternal salvation by “choosing to be offended” that people didn’t come to her child’s party. Did they RSVP and then not show up? Did she buy food that went to waste based on their RSVP? Did they not even bother to call to say “Hey, sorry, we can’t make it”? Did she have to comfort a crying child who felt rejected and friendless? Does the child already feel lonely or vulnerable or bullied? How much work did she put into this party they blew off? These are all relevant questions to ascertain how reasonable it was that she was upset, plus the fact that only the one woman had even apologized for missing the party. Context matters.
Jonathan C, “I don’t know anyone attempting to preserve the doctrine who is claiming offense”
Wow. Just read some of the myriad stories of liberal Mormons and ex-Mormons recounting interactions with their believing families. Countless stories of people being shunned and ostracized for coming out as LGBT, expressing disagreement with doctrinal claims, and doing a whole host of seemingly harmless things (such as drinking coffee, wearing clothing that reveals bare shoulders, shopping on Sundays). More often than not, I hear stories of believers who overreact and harm relationships with loved ones over the seeming slightest of disagreements. Nelson’s overreaction to calling Mormons the nickname “Mormon” a victory for Satan only seems to encourage and embolden a culture of easy offendedness among the LDS community. It boggles my mind that you seem completely unaware of this as if the only offended ones are these so-called liberals (religiously and perhaps politically so) around whom the believers are supposedly constantly walking on eggshells so as not to offend. I am always reading stories from liberal believers and non-believers about how they let LDS family homophobic remarks and expressions of outrageous views about history (humans don’t predate 6,000 years) slide. If anyone is forced to walk on eggshells, it is liberal LDS folks around the delicate and easily harmed sensitivities of conservative family members and friends. My experience has been is that most conservative members don’t want to have deep discussions. They want to bury their heads in the sand, and if forced to engage in deep discussions, their reaction to a seemingly unwelcome idea is not to engage it with reason, but to appeal to authority by saying, “well, Elder so-and-so said this!”, claim that you’re influenced by an evil spirit, hit you with a barrage of passive aggressive comments and body language over a long period of time, reactively recite their testimony as if saying “I know” to a bunch of truth claims makes them right, and recoil into defensive persecution complex mode.
I was offended a couple of years ago when talking to a member friend and shared some of the questions I’ve been struggling with regarding the church over the past few years. I prefaced my thoughts saying, “pray and read the scriptures” isn’t so helpful, just being able to share and have someone listen would be more helpful at this point.” Well, her response included telling me I need to figure out what is wrong with me and why I need someone to listen. That I need to humble myself, that her friends think and have experienced the same thing she has etc etc
She said “sorry if you felt offended.”
Ouch
Several weeks later she emailed me and said that although she meant to attack me she couldn’t fully apologize for our encounter because her heart was not there.
(She was and is the Stake RS President ).
I wanted to respond in kind (give her a piece of my mind) but have chosen not to. She has a lot “on her plate,” including caring for her mother who has dementia.
But I don’t think she appreciates the luxury she has of getting to express her thoughts in personal and public settings (sacrament meetings etc) and having them well received and validated. She doesn’t understand that people like me are looking for a place to fit within the church despite our many questions. Needless to say, I keep my mouth shut, limit my engagement and keep more to myself at church now.
We usually don’t know what is going on in people’s lives or what their past experiences are. It is important to err on the side of apology and not judge people who are offended. Leave that part up to God.
Angela,
I’m aware of a similar B-day invite experience. My seven year old grandson lives in a Utah ward that spans just a few streets. The mother of one of his primary class members invited the entire primary class to her son’s party – except for my grandson.
When people couch such situations in terms of “taking offense” instead of other, perhaps more appropriate terms (such as “ostracism” in my grandson’s case) it is to shift the burden of responsibility for the emotions of the situation from the aggressor to the aggrieved. It is a form of gas-lighting.
Outstanding post, Angela. You’ve articulated so clearly many of the problems that come up with our culture of blaming the person who gets hurt rather than the person who does the hurting. These are far more extreme examples, but I think this culture is squarely in line with our culture of blaming (and largely disbelieving) victims of abuse and rape. It’s no coincidence, I think, that Richard G. Scott’s well-known pair of Conference talks on abuse were directed at *victims*, telling them how to work through the awfulness they might be living through, rather than at *perpetrators*, telling them that they needed to stop.
Also, Michael 2, this that you said (among other things) is just ridiculous:
“Modern western civilization has enough material surplus to entertain deviations from evolutionary paths or God’s paths (doesn’t make a big difference who created the path). But that surplus is limited and evolution/God is going to intrude in a generation or two.”
Really? You mean like how God decreed that some people would have bad eyesight and others would have good eyesight, and the latter would have an advantage over the former? And we wicked humans have defied God by grinding glass into lenses so that the badly sighted can see! Now we even go so far as to *alter our bodies* with eye surgery so that those who God has decreed shouldn’t be able to see can see.
Or how God decreed that kids who get lots of ear infections should maybe not be able to overcome them and maybe die early? And here we wicked people went against God and invented antibiotics to kill the infecting agents, and like with the eyes, we again alter our very bodies by putting tubes in some kids’ ears so they’ll drain better, and children who God decreed should suffer and die now get to live to adulthood.
The reality is that we as a species are millennia removed from our first dabblings in going against what God or evolution handed down to us. You can try to dress up your belief in gender roles or whatever in a divine or evolutionary cloak, but it’s pretty obvious that these ideas are just things that you like. There’s no need to appeal to God or evolution for support.
Lois writes “Needless to say, I keep my mouth shut, limit my engagement and keep more to myself at church now”
As do I and my wife; but it was not always so. I taught high priests for about ten years and encountered nearly universal reluctance to engage. I told many stories, made myself somewhat vulnerable, and over some time succeeded to get the men to become willing to tell their stories. This is the “bear one another’s burdens” and “mourn with those that mourn” part of the Waters of Mormon.
Despite that, and incredible as it is, I have not been asked to speak in Sacrament meeting in the 20 years I’ve been in my present ward; and that includes the 10 years I was a teacher of HP. Through my Navy career I spoke fairly often in Sacrament meetings and have had several teaching assignments.
Anyone who befriends my wife and I are themselves at risk of being ostracised; so we tend to attract other outcasts and for that matter live among them. I don’t mean “middle way mormons”, but persons for whatever reason are being actively shunned.
A good post. Couple thoughts:
1) Being that our church is so conservative, one of the ways of thinking that’s been perpetuated from the era of the Greatest Generation is that you don’t expect people to take care of you. It’s not what your country or ward can do for you, it’s what you can do for your country. This is admirable, except that the expectation is made of others as much or more as it is of oneself. Consequently, there’s not as much sympathy with grievances. There’s an attitude that “I have to suck it up, and you have to suck it up too”.
2) Nobody likes being the bad guy. Nobody knows what to do when an apology is inadequate. So, instead of feeling guilty they get defensive. Feeling guilty is exhausting. I’m not sure members of the church are worse than other humans at this, but we’d hope we’d be better.
3) Members of the church call each other “brothers and sisters”, and there’s a presumed mutual obligation that’s less than what we expect from family members but certainly greater than what we expect from others we socialize with. That tends to intensify both the sense of offense/hurt/betrayal as well as the need for defensiveness to protect from additional feelings of inadequacy and/or guilt.
4) The “In” crowd — those who are more central to the ward’s sociality — are more likely to hold bigger callings and are more likely to give offense. They’re more likely to empathize with a person accused of giving offense than they are to empathize with a person who has been hurt, so the trajectory of the comments in the online group doesn’t surprise me.
I quoted Eben Alexander in one of my near-death experience posts who said “Physical life is characterized by defensiveness; spiritual life is just the opposite”. I think that is so profound. Defensiveness is pretty much the opposite of charity, and I think the more you experience it, the less spiritually whole you are.
Some thoughts, a mixture of irreverent and serious. I am sure that some will be unhappy with what I write, and I suspect that I will be the only person who completely likes what I write…….
From the Gospel of Me, Chapter 2, Verses 5, 6, and 7:
And behold, the Pharisees spake sorrowfully unto Jesus, we perceive that thou art angry with us. What can we do to help you get rid of your ill-tempered feelings against us that are without justification, and help you to repent and accept us as we are, even though we seek to destroy you because of the miracles that thou hast done, which cause the people to follow you, and which we are afraid will cause the Romans to remove us from our place?
And from the Gospel of Myself, Chapter 3, verses 9-11:
Cut thy Church leaders and other Church members some slack, even though they can be thoughtless, unhelpful, and occasionally even cruel—just like you, in fact!. It is always easier to see the (genuine) failings of leaders and other Church members, than to realize that you might even do worse than they did, in that leadership position, or, if they are not leaders, just are playing the favorite Mormon game of Confessing Other People’s Sin. This is not a uniquely Mormon game, but the favorite pastime of the entire human race.
Four facts that I believe are true, even though they exist in contradiction to each other:
(1) Members and leaders of any group, religious or secular, have trouble accepting criticisms or suggestions for doing something new. This happened to the Savior. It happened to Galileo. It happened to Ignaz Semmelweis, the man who discovered the cause of childbed fever. It happened to Joseph Smith. It is currently happening to a lot of people who do not participate in Mormon cultural group-think. (See Kuehn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”)
(2) Some people will always have a bug up their nether regions, no matter the good that you do or are trying to do, and they will never pass up an opportunity to find fault. Christ warned us about attempts to remove the mote from another’s eye, while overlooking the mote in our own eye.
(3) Saying, “I am sorry that you were offended by what I said (or did)” is very often a passive-aggressive way of shifting the onus to the person who was the victim of abusive behavior. Much better and more genuine: “I am sorry that I was offensive,” or, “I am sorry that I treated you badly. What can I do to make it better?”
(4) We need to forgive. But as Jeffrey Holland has said, this does not mean that we should make ourselves available for repeat abuse.
Yes the “offended” thing is a huge culture problem. It leads to a mentality that says that those who are strong are better than those who are weak. But the New Testament and especially Luke take the opposite view.
When you feel offended read this:
If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber’d here
While these visions did appear.
Tell your friends that women should have the Priesthood. When they protest, tell them not to get offended.
I’ve really enjoyed the OP and the robust discussion.
I’’ve noticed the notion of “offending God” coming up a couple of times. Most recently, that God is offended by the terms “Mormon” and “LDS” (but apparently not “The Church”). Also in a recent Face-to-Face with President Eyring and Elder Holland, there were cautions about offending when we “approach the Throne of God” without proper preparation, humility, and reverence.
I suppose it is God’s prerogative to be offended. But, how easily is God offended? How much should we worry and fret over offending God by our approach, weakness, or even or our own internal reluctance/stubbornness/defiance?
I can’t imagine being offended by the actions of an infant. Compared to the Supreme Being, I am less than an insect. Yes, “in nothing is God offended and against none is His wrath kindled . . . . “ but my primary orientation is not with a vengeful, punishing God.
I am certainly more concerned about being of one heart and mind with God than I am with my fellow saints and sinners, but wouldn’t it be well if we all took a little more care with each other’s hearts and minds? That certainly wouldn’t offend God.
BeenThere writes “but my primary orientation is not with a vengeful, punishing God.”
Then you already have your answer.
If he cannot be offended then he is not offended. D&C 88 says nothing about God choosing where we go in the next life; it seems to me each of us chooses where we WANT go to. Now it may be that God has preferences, seems likely given the labor involved in creating the heavens and the Earth probably hoping for some sort of result.
Taiwan Missionary suggests “Much better and more genuine: I am sorry that I was offensive,”
The problem for me is that I am never offensive, not by my value system anyway. If your value system is different you might be offended, but how am I to know that and why should I be sorry?
“I am sorry that I treated you badly. What can I do to make it better?”
Pretty much the same. I do not treat people badly, but they may decide I have done so. In New York city it is the law to call people by their preferred pronoun, and I suppose there’s about 50. Do you treat someone badly because you cannot remember which of the 50 to call each person you know, don’t know, meet on the street? Perhaps like me you decide it just isn’t worth the trouble and if you take offense, so be it.
I wonder how offensive I could be if I actually worked at it? Probably a 7.
I see that I make distinction between what I consider trivial offenses (wrong pronoun) and serious offenses (deliberate ostracism of a ward member that has been designated the Scape Goat to take the ward’s sins out into he desert and perish).
Since a human can only remember a limited number of behaviors and rules these memory slots or bins ought to be occupied with Important Rules, not trivialities. The Golden Rule is up there pretty high but presumes that you have the same desires and offenses as I.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you might not work for people interested in BDSM.
“Do unto me as I want you to do unto me” seems to be the new rule. Good luck figuring out what I want you to do.
“The problem for me is that I am never offensive”
I find this hard to believe given your history of quasi-trollish comments.
John W writes “I find this hard to believe given your history of quasi-trollish comments.”
Thank you!
The point I make is that I CANNOT offend you; it is not my choice to make. You can choose to be offended, or not offended, by anything. Some here are offended by, say, Elder Oaks while others admire his consistent defense of a morality that caused many members to join in the first place. So which is it; is HE offensive or not offensive? That is impossible; he cannot be both! Clearly it is each person deciding for himself whether to be offended.
Americans were once taught “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.” Why is that? Because if you respond to taunt, you are playing at someone else’s game. There is no way to win. But a narcissist will always respond to taunt, being as they are inherently insecure and feel threatened by taunt.